Accepted Manuscript

Critical success factors for the transition to business models for sustainability in
the food and beverage industry in the Netherlands

Thomas B. Long, Arnold Looijen, Vincent Blok

PII: S0959-6526(17)32725-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.067

Reference: JCLP 11206

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 25 May 2016

Revised Date: 10 October 2017

Accepted Date: 10 November 2017

Please cite this article as: Thomas B. Long, Arnold Looijen, Vincent Blok, Critical success factors
for the transition to business models for sustainability in the food and beverage industry in the
Netherlands, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.067

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Critical success factors for the transition to business models for

sustainability in the food and beverage industry in the Netherlands
Thomas B. Long*1, Arnold Looijen and Vincent Blok

Management Studies Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN, Wageningen, The

Netherlands.

Abstract

Businesses will play a key role in helping the transition towards greater sustainability. To maximise
business sustainability performance, sustainability characteristics must be integrated at the business
model level, creating business models for sustainability. Creating a business model for sustainability,
or transitioning from a traditional business model, is likely to be a complicated and challenging
process. Previous research has identified a range of barriers, such as low financial report or little
legislative support.

The aim of this research is to explore and identify critical success factors and barriers for the
transition from traditional business models to business models for sustainability. Previous research
provides indications as to the barriers faced when attempting to develop BMfS, but does so using
conceptual lenses that emphasise external influences and factors. We seek to explore the process of
business model innovation for sustainability from a perspective that pays greater attention to
internal processes and from a management perspective, building on concepts of organisational
change management.

The research focuses on start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME’s) in the Dutch
Food and Beverages Industry. This is an interesting empirical context, as this sector is a dynamic,
economically significant in the Netherlands, and is under pressure to improve its environmental
performance. Data is collected from 14 cases, using semi-structured interviews, and is then analysed
to identify a range of critical success factors and barriers. We find that collaboration, a clear
narrative and vision, continual innovation, a sustainable foundation, profitability, and serendipitous
external events are all critical success factors for the transition to business models for sustainability.
Barriers include external events, principle-agent problems as well as a lack of support from wider
actors and systems. The results highlight that businesses wishing to develop a business model for
sustainability must make sustainability the key principle upon which the firm is founded. Continual
development and improvement is required in addition to the support of a range of different actor’s
external to the firm, such as suppliers, customers, and government.

Keywords:

Organisational change management; business models for sustainability; business model innovation;
sustainable business

*Corresponding Author: Dr Thomas B. Long, tomblong9@aol.com

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Introduction
Business will play a key role in the move towards a more sustainable future. As the impacts of
unsustainable practices increase, such as environmental destruction or exploitative working
practices, there is a growing awareness for the need for sustainability (Raworth, 2005; Rockstrom et
al., 2009). Change is needed at the individual, organisational and the systems level. At the
organisational level, it is businesses that exert significant influence over unsustainable production
systems and consumption trends (Michaelis, 2003). Businesses are being driven to engage with
sustainability issues due to greater scrutiny from society, the increasing value of reputation, and
efficiency drivers. But, current business practices often remain unsustainable (Rockstrom et al.,
2009).

For businesses to fully contribute to the transition towards sustainable development, sustainability
principles need to be integrated into the core of business design, operation, and strategy (Stubbs
and Cocklin, 2008). This is achieved through the creation of business models for sustainability
(BMfS). Business models define how businesses create value, select customers, assign processes,
and enter markets (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002;
Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009; Osterwalder et al., 2005). The business model represents a
foundational layer where sustainability can be fully integrated into a business, creating a BMfS
(Osterwalder et al., 2005). A BMfS seeks profit across the ‘triple bottom-line’, generating sustainable
value while reducing negative environmental and social impacts (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016;
Schaltegger et al., 2016). A BMfS approach creates environmental and/or social value, in addition to
the more usual economic outcomes (Bohnsack et al., 2014; Chun and Lee, 2013; Young and Tilley,
2006). Research has examined a range of critical questions, for example conceptualising and
characterising BMfS (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons et al., 2013; Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016), links to
strategy and entrepreneurship (Bohnsack et al., 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2016), tools for their
creation (Bocken et al., 2013; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016) and to business model innovation
(Schaltegger et al., 2011).

The creation of BMfS requires innovation both in terms of the creation of new business models and
adjustment to existing ones. Business model innovation differs from product or process innovation
in that it involves changes to the foundational values and approaches of a firm, and is often radical
and transformative with profound implications. The development of BMfS is subject to a range of
barriers, including poor economic incentives, no legislative pressure or a lack of consumer
acceptance (Asswad et al., 2016; Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). While these studies identify remedial
actions, they do so within the contexts of open innovation (Asswad et al., 2016) or in terms of the
wider innovation system (Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). These approaches focus on the external
environment of the firm, potentially missing important internal factors. Adjacent literature has
considered critical success factors, however, its application to the context of sustainable business
model innovation is questionable. For instance, barriers and drivers to wider business model
innovation have been explored (Chesbrough, 2010; SCHNEIDER and SPIETH, 2013), however, this
previous research assumes that business model innovation is driven by competitive advantage
drivers, rather than sustainability aims. The pressures that drive business model innovation are likely
to alter the factors that facilitate and inhibit the business model innovation process. Success factors
have also been identified in terms of sustainable product innovation (de Medeiros et al., 2014),
however, the business model innovation process is quite different in nature and impact (altering the
foundations of a firm), again meaning the success factors are likely to be different. A key question,
therefore, concerns the factors that allow businesses to transition away from traditional business
models and to develop and operate BMfS.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Chesbrough, 2010; SCHNEIDER and SPIETH, 2013)(de Medeiros et al., 2014)This paper identifies the
critical success factors for the transition towards BMfS. This is achieved by empirically exploring the
success factors and barriers experienced by companies transitioning from traditional business
models to BMfS, as well as companies that have been founded using a BMfS.

As a point of departure, we develop a framework based on organisational change management

concepts to explore the factors and processes impacting the transition to (or creation of) BMfS. We
show that whilst organisational change management concepts can serve as a useful conceptual base,
the critical success factors that emerge from the empirical sample are quite different to those
included within the literature. We find that collaboration, a foundation of sustainability, continuous
innovation, a clear narrative and vision, a need for profitability and external events can all act as
critical success factors. As such, we provide an initial assessment of critical success factors for the
creation of BMfS. We focus our approach on the internal processes and factors associated with
business model innovation with the use of management focused concepts, rather than from an
innovation systems approach and in terms of open innovation, as with previous research (Asswad et
al., 2016; Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). Our approach provides more focused perspective compared
to research that explores the development of corporate sustainability (Lozano, 2013), but a more
widely applicable contribution than that found for business models for sufficiency (Bocken and
Short, 2016).

This research takes place within the Dutch Food and Beverage Industry, which provides an
interesting empirical context because the food and beverage industry as a whole is the largest
industrial sector in the Netherlands, and the sector has a high potential environmental impact
(Delahaye et al., 2013). Consequently, the creation of BMfS have the potential for both high
economic, but also environmental and social impacts. Further, since 2008, there has been a growing
awareness of sustainability issues within this sector, driven by concerns for issues such as energy
efficiency, climate change or animal welfare (FoodDrinkEurope, 2012; Reisch et al., 2013). As such,
there are drivers for change and key issues that can act as catalysts around which business model
innovations can take place. Lastly, we focus on small and medium-sized companies or start-up firms,
which are often the context within which radical innovations, such as those required for the creation
of BMfS, emerge (Ebben and Johnson, 2005). This provides a dynamic context and the opportunity
for an interesting research sample to be found. The Netherlands was chosen as the geographical
setting for issues of access and convenience, as all researchers were based in the Netherlands. Siting
the study in one country meant all cases would be operating in a similar cultural and institutional
context, limiting the number of variables impacting critical success factors and barriers.

2 Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

Due to the nature of our question and to develop our theoretical framework, we review a range of
different literatures. First, and to chart those factors previously highlighted as effecting how
organisations change, we consider both mainstream organisational change management research as
well as research more focused on the transition towards sustainability and BMfS. This provides an
initial indication as to possible critical success factors. Second, we consider the stages that business
go through in their journey towards sustainability, before, thirdly, examining the characteristics of
BMfS. These three strands of literature are then synthesised into a theoretical framework which is
utilised in the research design and explored using the data.

2. 1 Organisational change drivers and barriers

The development of BMfS will require alterations to how a business operates, which will involve
internal changes to businesses (Lozano, 2009b). Following this reasoning, concepts that address and

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

explain how organisations change could aid in understanding how BMfS emerge, and the success
factors and barriers involved. Organisational change management as a field of research identifies key
factors that influence organisational change (Cameron and Green, 2009). We reviewed literature on
organisational change management in general, and for sustainability in particular. Here, research
ranges from more general considerations of how sustainability is integrated into corporate
management and strategy (Lozano, 2013), how SMEs incorporate sustainability (van Hemel and
Cramer, 2002), and how these issues interact with the business case for sustainability (Schaltegger et
al., 2011) and their role in the creation of business models for sufficiency (Bocken and Short, 2016).

Leadership can be seen as a driver via proactive leadership, or as a barrier, in terms of non-active
leadership or lack of leadership. Proactive leadership seeks to foresee and influence change as well
as encourage a wide set of individuals to take part in decision-making processes, providing a
compelling shared vision (Dawson, 1994; Lozano, 2009b; Roelofsen et al., 2015). The proactivity of
the leader ultimately flows through the entire organization, providing a source or seed of radical
change, such as that associated with developing BMfS. A pro-active leader is also seen to encourage
justice, diversity, resourcefulness and conservation (Hargreaves and Fink, 2012), which relate well to
principles of sustainability. The corresponding change barrier is non-active leadership. For a
transition to BMfS, this could mean that no top-down direction or drive is provided towards
sustainability. Non-active leadership could take the form of a lack of active engagement with
sustainability, acting at the level of individuals (Osagie et al., 2016; Wesselink et al., 2015), or a lack
of strategy and managerial commitment, acting at the level of the organisation (Lozano, 2013). A
lack of leadership and communication has also been found in terms of the creation of business
models for sufficiency (Bocken and Short, 2016).

Economic benefits form the second key factor. Available economic benefits represent a driver, whilst
a failure to identify potential economic benefits diminishes or eliminates this driver for change
(Cannon, 1994)(Benn et al., 2014; Lantos, 2001; Schaltegger et al., 2011). Indeed, The Natural Step
(2016) highlights the importance of a return on investment for any sustainability initiative to be
successful. This makes it likely that such a factor would play a key role in the successful development
of or change to a BMfS. Other research highlights that sustainability benefits, or the lack of them, are
also in important driving factor (van Hemel and Cramer, 2002).

Aspiration is a factor for change, as in management terms, aspiration relates to an individual’s (i.e.,
the employees) desire for achieving realistic goals and experiencing a sense of accomplishment
(Senge, 2000). Levels of aspiration impact an organisation’s capacity to learn and change. Aspiration
produces continuous learning and growth. Aspiration can also be linked to the extent to which
sustainability is integrated into the ambitions and mission statement of an organisation, and is noted
in terms of change towards corporate sustainability specifically (Benn et al., 2014; Senge, 2000). The
corresponding factor that can inhibit change is apathy, or to an extreme, fear (Cameron and Green,
2009). This could be linked to perceived threats to job security or to a lack of trust (Lozano, 2013).
Apathy results in little drive or care for change, and whilst fear can produce short-term results, these
are likely to be associated with a negative vision, limiting long-term impacts (Senge, 2000).

External factors can be a crucial influence in the decision-making process for implementing change in
an organization as well. Whilst this is a broad factor, encompassing a range of specific drivers or
barriers, external impacts such as political and financial upheaval, new technologies, regulatory
change, worldwide competition, and consumer preferences can have an influence on the need for
change (Dawson, 1994; Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun, 2011; van Hemel and Cramer, 2002). External
factors can influence if and how sustainability is implemented in an organization; for example, a lack
of governmental support may decrease the willingness to implement sustainability in an

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

organization, whereas a clear market demand for products or services with a low environmental
impact would enhance the transition towards a sustainable business model.

To see and respond to changing market demands or to act in response to problems such as climate
impacts, firms need the ability to identify the nature and cause of events. ‘Diagnosis’ or awareness
are subsequently key factors for successful organisational change (Cameron and Green, 2009; Carr,
2001; The Natural Step, 2016). For example, a business has to be able to recognise an opportunity to
decrease costs and enhance the customer offering through a product-service-system, for the
business model to change. Diagnosis can be a change barrier either where awareness is lacking, or
where the outcome of the assessment or diagnosis is incorrect.

The final factor is the existence of visible crises, where an upsurge in negative events attracts the
attention of managers (Kotter, 1996). Market failures or eco-system failures like global warming
drive the change towards sustainability and convince the entrepreneur to transition to a sustainable
business model (Blok, 2018). For example, high-profile accidents in Bangladeshi garment factories,
including the 2012 Dhaka fire and 2013 Savar building collapse, led to action by the clothing brands
and retailers supplied by the region. These retailers sought alternative suppliers or introduced new
efforts to ensure minimum safety standards (Henniker-Major, 2014). If there is no indication of a
crisis, however, then there is no urgency to implement change. Therefore, the downturn of visible
crises has a negative effect on change (Kotter, 1996).
Table 1: Key factors impacting organisational change as identified and synthesised from the literature.

Factor Impacting Organisational Change Source

Leadership Dawson (1994); Hargreaves and Fink (2012); Lozano
et al. (2015); Blok et al. (2015)

Economic benefits Benn et al. (2014); Cannon (1994); Lantos (2001);

Schaltegger et al. (2011); The Natural Step (2016)

Fear or aspiration Cameron and Green (2009); Senge (1999)

External influences Dawson (1994); Ditlev-Simonsen and Midttun (2011);

van Hemel and Cramer (2002)

Awareness and ability to diagnose Cameron and Green (2009); Carr (2001)

Existence of visible crises Henniker-Major (2014); Kotter (1996); Blok (2018).

The above noted factors emerged from our review of literature which focused on organisational
change management, both more generally and change management for sustainability, and are
illustrated in Table 1. They highlight that a range of internal and external factors can both drive and
inhibit change and transformation processes. The extent to which these factors are applicable in the
context of transformations needed to create BMfS will be explored through the data. Additional
conceptual perspectives will also be explored, including the transition to sustainable business and
the general factors involved in business model innovation.

2. 2 The transition towards sustainable business

The business transition from a profit maximising orientation towards a more holistic or sustainable
view of goals and performance is not a new area of study (Benn et al., 2014; Keijzers, 2002; Visser,
2014). A common narrative exists, noting an initial rise in environmental regulation in the 1970s,

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

followed by increasing engagement with eco-efficiency and resource conservation with the release
of the Brundtland report from the late 1980s. New forms of governance, such as voluntary
agreements and other activities associated with corporate sustainability, emerged alongside these
shifts (Keijzers, 2002).

Such an analysis can categorise these shifts into phases. Visser (2014) describes five overlapping
stages which, similarly to Keijzers (2002), account for the observable trend, as well as providing
some normative vision for what sustainable business will look like in the future (see Table 2). The
final phase or stage of transition, that of Transformative corporate responsibility, is where the root
causes of unsustainable and irresponsible practices are tackled through business model innovations.
At the transformative stage of corporate sustainability, the principles of creativity, scalability,
responsiveness, glocality (global-local balance) and circularity (closed-loop production principles) are
seen to act as a foundation to sustainable business (Visser, 2014).

Business Age Stage of Corporate Modus Operandi

Sustainability
Greed Defensive Ad hoc
Philanthropy Charitable Community programmes
Marketing Promotional Public relations
Management Strategic Management systems
Responsibility Transformative Business models
Table 2: Business Ages and Stages of corporate sustainability, adapted from Visser (2014).

Van Tilburg et al. (2012) contribute here with their work on sustainable entrepreneurship, which
introduced four phases characterising the stance of a business towards sustainability. These phases
include inactive, reactive, active, and proactive (highlighted in Table 3).

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Synthesis of the key components of the four stages model of sustainable entrepreneurship, characterising the
different stances of business to sustainability. Adapted from Van Tilburg et al., (2012)

Conduct
Inactive Reactive Active Pro-Active
Vision on None General statements Focus on societal Holistic, strategic
Sustainability contribution

Orientation None External adduced, Market and products Cosmopolitan,

external business, location or services society
developments

Business case Costs, clients, and Costs, clients, law, Costs, clients, law, Costs, clients, law,
Elements law and reputation reputation, and reputation, identity,
identity long-term
continuity
Transparency None On request Product and chain Full transparency
Reporting None, or legally Separate Sustainability Integrated with
obliged sustainability reporting with focus intertwined
environmental report focused on on core themes and strategy
reporting process products
Stakeholders Government, Government, Government, clients, Society
important clients clients, suppliers, suppliers, NGO’s,
some NGO’s employees

Supply Chain No sustainable Minor conduct Engagement and Co-creation

approach aspects codes for suppliers broad codes of
conduct
Dominant Operations, legal Public affairs Corporate Management/Board
Functional communication and and strategy
Discipline HR

The inactive phase is characterised by seeing sustainability as a task for the government, and where
there are few advantages for entrepreneurship to focus on sustainability. Organizations in the
reactive phase are more socially responsive compared to the inactive phase, but focus mainly on
reputation and so cannot be considered to have drastically altered business models.

In the active phase, businesses see sustainability as a market opportunity and as a driver for
innovation. Whereas the inactive and the reactive phase are associated with traditional business
models, businesses in the active phase can be seen to start to develop some characteristics of BMfS.
Businesses in the active phase start to improve their products or services by sustainable innovation.

In the proactive phase, the strategy of the company is inherently intertwined with sustainability
challenges (Stoughton and Ludema, 2012; Van Tilburg et al., 2012).Both Van Tilburg et al. (2012) and
Visser (2014) highlight a move from traditional, enclosed and profit driven modes of business,
towards more holistic strategies, where sustainability is incorporated into the core of the business
model. The core difference between the authors can be seen in the number of phases each identifies
(i.e. four versus five). However, one can argue that the inactive phase of (Van Tilburg et al., 2012)
includes both the defensive and charitable phases of Visser (2014). We synthesise the contributions
of Visser (2014) and Van Tulder et al. (2013) (see Error! Reference source not found.), as this
provides a clear outline of various stages in a business’s transition towards a more sustainable
orientation.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4: Synthesis of phases to sustainable business approaches of Visser (2014) and Van Tilburg et al. (2014)

Visser Van Tilburg Characteristics

et al.
Defensive Inactive Ad hoc, no to limited vision of sustainability, little engagement externally.
Charitable Reactive Limited external orientation, some community programmes, and public
Promotional relations. Some reporting.
Strategic Active Increasing focus on products and supply chain sustainability using management
systems, with sustainability reporting focused on products and internal
strategies.
Transformative Proactive Holistic approach to sustainability fully integrated into business models and
business strategy.

Schaltegger et al. (2011) highlight the different degrees and innovation stages involved in the
creation of BMfS. These include:

- Adjustments, where only a small change is made, which does not include the value
proposition.
- Business model adoption, where a business model is changed to match or mirror a
competitors’ changes.
- Business model improvements, where most elements of the business model are changed
and improved.
- Business model redesign, where improvements mean that a new value proposition is
developed.

These stages relate well to the work of both Van Tilburg et al. (2012) and Visser (2014), and similarly
chart the various degrees or types of sustainability engagement, but at the business model level.
However, this focus on the business model means that wider factors, such as the role and impact of
corporate culture, reporting and transparency are lost in the analysis.

This changing stance of business fits within a wider literature concerned with socio-technical
transitions towards sustainability. Changes at this systems level – in terms of technology, politics, the
economy and culturally - will occur simultaneously with changes in the way that businesses operate
(Loorbach et al., 2009). Business models provide a conceptual link between the changes in
businesses that are required and the changes to systems (Boons et al., 2013). This transition thinking
also provides businesses with strategies. For example, Loorbach et al. (2009) notes first that the co-
evolution with systems change means that firms may need to experiment first, before moving fully
towards new business models. And second, that if firms first identify and address sustainability
issues at the societal level, they can then create business models that specially address these issues.

Indeed, a key contribution has identified factors that inhibit the development and diffusion of BMfS
(Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). Different barriers are identified for the different orientations that
BMfS innovation takes, including technological, social, and organisational barriers. For instance, a
lack of legislative pressure and too few economic incentives inhibit technologically orientated BMfS,
while consumer related factors, as well as attitudes and values inhibit the diffusion of organisational
oriented BMfS. This research took an innovation systems approach, exploring how the different
functions of an innovation system interacted with the diffusion of BMfS.

The frameworks and literature reviewed above provide a basis from which to understand the
transition from traditional to sustainable business models. They also provide criteria that aid in

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

highlighting suitable empirical examples for this research. In the next section, we will identify more
explicit sustainable business model characteristics.

2. 3 Characteristics of Business Models for Sustainability

BMfS aim to provide products or services that directly or indirectly reduce the pressure on society
and the environment while still generating profits equal to or greater than traditional business
(Bocken and Short, 2016; Bohnsack et al., 2014; Chun and Lee, 2013).

Initial engagement with the topic of BMfS focused on the added value to corporate sustainability
that could be achieved by examining and altering the foundations of organisations (Stubbs and
Cocklin, 2008). This led to the notion that the creation of BMfS requires radical shifts in the way that
businesses operate, as incremental changes are likely to be able to be incorporated into existing
traditional business models (Schaltegger et al., 2011). This mirrors the distinction between ‘bolt on’
sustainability actions versus more fundamental shifts that are required in order to achieve
‘sustainable business’ (Long et al., 2015). These early approaches sought to impact external
stakeholders and the wider socio-economic environment, for example by encouraging reform of
energy and transport systems, or the re-designing of accounting systems to place less emphasis on
short-term financial goals (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).

Later contributions started to articulate the specific characteristics and forms of BMfS. For example,
that the value proposition should include ecological, social and economic values (Boons and Lüdeke-
Freund, 2013). That supply chain management should include a focus on sustainability, that
customer services maintain prolonged relationships with customers, and that firms take
responsibility for their production and consumption systems (i.e. consumer education models,
product assistance, and transparency) (Blok et al., 2015; Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Tencati
and Zsolnai, 2012). Costs and benefits should be more equally distributed with, for example,
suppliers (i.e. ethical trade), and there should be a broader, more democratic, and balanced
governance system (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Tencati and Zsolnai, 2012). Alternatively, that
the business model should aim for sufficiency, involving the reduction of customer demand reducing
material inputs (Bocken and Short, 2016). An examination of how best to optimise business models
for sustainable technology diffusion found that the business model had to be addressed as a whole,
rather than making changes to different aspects of the business model in isolation (Long et al., 2017)

Efforts have also been made to provide more practical categorisations of sustainable business
models, with the aim of seeking ways to transform negative outcomes into positives, to tackle the
demands of stakeholders and seek new unique ways of sustainable value creation. These include a
deductive approach via a review of 87 business models seen as providing sustainability benefits,
which identified five categories of BMfS (Clinton and Whisnant, 2014). These included those that
reduce environmental impact, via closed-loop production or ‘physical to virtual’ production for
example; or those that impact social elements, via ‘buy one, give one’ schemes or cooperatives;
base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) approaches; as well as financing innovations, such as crowdsourcing or
service orientated sales models, replacing customer ownership of products.

A comprehensive contribution is provided by Bocken et al. (2014), who identifies eight archetypes by
assessing available examples for business model innovations for sustainability. These are split into
technological, social, or organisational categories. Each are summarised in Table 5.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5: Business models for sustainability archetypes (Bocken et al., 2014).

Construct Approach and Examples

Maximisation of Doing more with less, minimising waste, emissions, and energy use.
material and energy Examples include re-manufacturing or dematerialization, low-carbon
efficiency manufacturing; lean manufacturing).
Technological

Creating value from Valorisation of by-products such as emissions through re-processing or

waste product take-back schemes. Other examples include cradle-to-cradle
thinking, closed-loop supply chains, circular economy.
Renewable and Increasing the use of renewable energies, biomimicry, or green chemistry.
natural process Examples include renewable energy sources, biomimicry, or green
substitution chemistry.
Delivering Business provides services that satisfy the stakeholders’ needs without
functionality over having to own physical products, such as pay-per-user and product
ownership system approaches.
Adopting a Undertaking proactive engagement with stakeholders via a long-term
stewardship approach outlook. Examples include biodiversity protection, ethical trade, or choice
Social

editing by retailers.
Encouraging Utilising and implementing solutions which actively seek to reduce
sufficiency production and consumption, moving away from having to maximise
material sales to maximise profits. For example, consumer education;
demand management; product longevity.
Repurpose for society Business is focused on delivering social and environmental benefits,
and/or the instead of singular focus on economic profit maximisation. For example,
environment using not-for-profit; hybrid businesses; localization; or base of pyramid
Organisational

solutions.

Develop scale-up Business aims to deliver sustainable solutions at a larger scale to

solutions maximise the benefits for the society and the environment rather than
the company itself. For example, Incubators; open innovation; or
crowdsourcing/funding.

The archetypes approach holds value as it identifies methods for enhancing sustainability, before
grouping these methods according to their impacts and approach.

2. 4 Conceptual framework
To identify critical success factors for the transition towards BMfS, we propose a framework based
on the organisational change management literature reviewed in section 2.1. We conceive of the
transition to BMfS as occurring in the active/strategic phase as described by Visser (2014) and Van
Tulder et al. (2013), with a BMfS having been achieved in the proactive/transformative phase. We
argue that a BMfS is not possible in these earlier phases. For instance, in the strategic/active phase,
where there is increasing focus on products and supply chain sustainability using management
systems, with sustainability reporting focused on products and internal strategies, a BMfS has not
yet been implemented. Design and initial preparatory steps could be occurring in this phase. The
transformative/proactive phase is where the BMfS are implemented, as this phase is characterised
by a holistic approach to sustainability fully integrated into business strategy and organisational
design.

While we depict the transition to sustainability as a phased process, with firms advancing from each
phase in sequence, it is likely to be possible for firms to skip phases. For instance, it may be possible

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

for a firm to jump from inactive/defensive to active/strategic phase. For graphical simplicity, we do
not illustrate this possibility within Figure 1. Overall, this conception provides the timeline and
process backing needed for our understanding. To answer the research questions, however, we
must identify the factors that enable and drive this transition.

To guide our identification of critical success factors, we take an organisational change management
approach, as outlined in section 2.1. This literature explores those factors that allow organisations to
make changes (Cameron and Green, 2009; Lozano, 2009a), in this case the change to a BMfS or the
creation of a BMfS. BMfS will require alterations to how a business operates involving internal
changes (Lozano, 2009a). Using organisational change management concepts allows an emphasis of
these internal processes, while also leaving room to acknowledge the impact of external and
environmental forces.

While this study focuses on identifying critical success factor, it is likely that some factors will also act
as barriers to the development of BMfS (Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). As such, we also include
barriers highlighted within previous examinations of organisational change management. Figure 1
illustrates the conceptual backing to the research based on the review of the literature and includes
the transition to BMfS as well as key organisational change factors.
Figure 1: Development of BMfS Success Factors and Barriers Overview Framework

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3 Methods: data collection and data analysis

To answer our research question, we required empirical data and evidence. To achieve this, we
firstly needed to identify examples of business models that could be characterised as BMfS. This
then allowed data to be gathered on how the BMfS were created. A These are based on the
definitions and typologies developed by previous scholars.

To identify BMfS within the food and beverage industry, two complementary concepts of sustainable
business are used. Using two concepts was felt to increase the robustness of the method for
identifying suitable examples. The first concept we draw upon are the transition towards sustainable
business (see section 2.2), where we synthesise the contributions of Visser (2014) and Van Tulder et
al. (2013) (see Error! Reference source not found.). The second concept acts in a more confirmatory
way and seeks to characterise the specific forms of the BMfS, using the characteristics developed by
Bocken et al. (2014) (i.e. creating value from waste, encouraging sufficiency etc.). This approach is
taken partly due to difficulties in applying the archetypes categories (Bocken et al., 2014) to practical
or empirical examples.

The transformative/proactive phase is most relevant for this research because sustainability aspects
have been integrated into the business model (Van Tilburg et al., 2012; Visser, 2014); using these
concepts, we derive selection criteria for the identification of cases as shown in the last two columns
of Table 3. For example, where the firm has a holistic and strategic vision on sustainability, a societal
orientation and a co-creating approach to supply chain relations could be found. Only businesses
with activities consistent with these requirements are included in the research sample.

With this twinned approach (i.e. sustainable business model archetypes and the phase of sustainable
business), we construct a classification system based on two sets of criteria. This is analogues to
previous research that has sought to identify BMfS; for example, Birkin et al. (2009), in their study of
BMfS in China, identified potential empirical examples by searching for companies that displayed a
recognition of the importance of sustainable performance through innovations for sustainable
development, certification (i.e. ISO140001) or local awards.

Further, whilst the archetypes are not necessarily ‘phase dependent’, it is conceivable that they
could be found within the active phase. For instance, whilst archetypes such as encouraging
sufficiency or repurposing for society and/or the environment are likely only to be possible in the
proactive or transformation phase, creating value from waste or maximising material and energy
efficiency could conceivable to be achieved during the strategic or active phase. This provides a
further rationale for including the transition to sustainable business elements into the case
identification approach.

3. 2 Data collection
Although existing research and theory from adjacent topics was utilised to develop a theoretical
framework, the research question examines an area of knowledge were little is understood. Further,
our questions are of a ‘how’ and ‘why’ nature, requiring rich and in-depth data. This indicates that a
qualitative and analytic inductive approach is most appropriate (Gilgun, 2011; Gilgun, 2015;
Saunders et al., 2009). By using analytic induction, we utilise and integrate existing theory and
research. Whilst using existing theory, we remain open to new interpretations and are sensitive for
our specific empirical contexts (O'Reilly et al., 2012). This allows us to develop further theoretical
propositions and insights.

Following this stance, data was acquired from businesses who had BMfS in order to understand
those factors that could be considered to have aided or hindered the transition.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The first step to identify and recruit cases involved scanning the food and beverage sector in the
Netherlands, via internet searches and discussions with industry. An initial list of more than 60 cases
was developed; during this process, start-ups and SMEs were included if evidence of sustainability
initiatives being incorporated into their business models could be found, which is analogous to the
approach undertaken by Birkin et al. (2009).

Next, further investigation of the short-listed companies was undertaken to assess where in the
phases of sustainability strategy model they were; only those businesses that could be considered to
be in the proactive/transformational phase were included (see criteria set out within Error!
Reference source not found.). Businesses that were assessed as being within the pro-active phase
were then approached for formal interviews. Using the interview data, they were then assessed
again to confirm that they were in the proactive/transformational phase and that they incorporated
at least one of the BMfS archetypes (see section: 2. 3 Characteristics of Business Models for
Sustainability). These were determined to be the minimum requirements for inclusion within the
research, and to ensure that we had relevant, interesting, and appropriate cases. An overview of this
process is outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Process for assessment and inclusion of businesses within the research.

Data were collected from a total of 15 businesses. One business was excluded from the sample as it
was a subsidiary of a larger multinational company and as such not readily compatible with the
SME’s (n=6) and start-ups (n=8) that formed the rest of the sample.

The interviews followed a semi-structured format, consistent with the need for rich and in-depth
data. Questions for each set of concepts as described in section 0 were included. The authors based
the questions on the variables and constructs of the different models as can be found in Appendix.

The interviews lasted between the 45 minutes and 1 hour and 45 minutes. Interviews were
conducted either face-to-face or via telephone. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed in
Dutch, and then translated into English. An overview of the businesses included in the research can
be found in Table 6. Table 6 notes the size of the company and the focus of the business, its

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

sustainable orientation and achievements, as well as the sustainability phase the businesses was
assessed to be in, as described by Van Tilburg et al. (2012) in Table 3. Where the ‘Pro-active ex.
reporting’ is noted in the last column, this is referencing that many of the firms fit all of the pro-
active sustainability phase criteria apart from the requirement of integrated reporting. It was felt
this was due to many of the firms being SMEs, where reporting is uncommon, rather than a
reflection of their sustainability orientation.
Table 6: Overview of businesses included in the sample.

Business Company size/type Sustainable orientation and achievements Sustainability Phase

1 Start-up: Sustainable B-Corp Certification2 Pro-active ex.
home food delivery reporting

2 SME: Meat and fish Most Innovative SME Netherlands Award Pro-active ex.
substitute producer using reporting
‘textured’ vegetable fibre’

3 SME: Organic food Strives for fair balance in the supply chain, Pro-active
producer sourcing only organic produce

4 Start-up: Sustainable fish Sustainable supply chain management Pro-active ex.

wholesaler approaches reporting

5 SME: Fruit juice supplier Uses HPP technology (cold pasteurisation) to Pro-active ex.
increase shelf life, reducing waste reporting

6 Start-up: Mushroom Grows mushrooms using coffee waste and Pro-active ex.
producer without chemical inputs reporting

7 Start-up: Delivers organic
vegetable boxes to
supermarkets direct from
farmers
8 SME: ready meal producer
Ensures fair pricing for suppliers (farmers) and Pro-active ex.
eliminates waste by including all produce reporting
No additives or preservatives, and source Pro-active ex.
ingredients locally. Nominated for regional reporting
sustainable entrepreneurship award

9 Start-up: Affordable, Work with small organic farmers and employ Pro-active ex.
organic food supplier disadvantaged, socially disrupted individuals reporting

10 Start-up: Delivers Delivers product through a transparent, direct Pro-active ex.

sustainable lunchboxes to (no middlemen) supply chain, with fair profit reporting
businesses sharing with farmers

11 Start-up: Food catering Provide advice and tools for caterers and Pro-active ex.
sustainability consultants restaurants wanting to be more sustainable. reporting
Activities include stakeholder communication
and education.

2B-Corps are profit orientated businesses certified by the B Lab to meet rigorous standards in relation to
environmental and social performance, accountability, and transparency. Certification demonstrates that
profits are being made, whilst still maintaining a positive orientation and impact on sustainability.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12 SME: produces bakery Has a socially responsible entrepreneurship Pro-active

ingredients in several working group, integrating sustainability
countries. initiatives into all departments.

13 Start-up: Water buffalo Organic meat and milk. Run a ‘transparency Pro-active ex.
farm, producing ice- forum’ to share their best practice. reporting
cream, milk, and meat.

14 SME: Ready meal provider Focus on local sourcing and responding to Pro-active
to patients within specific patient demands, to reduce waste,
healthcare organisations. using online ordering.

3. 3 Data analysis
After transcribing and translating the interviews, coding was undertaken. This was a two-step
process. Analysis first focused on case selection and qualification, where coding was based on the
criteria and categories developed through the literature review and conceptual framework. Second,
open coding identified critical success factors and barriers for the development of and transition to
BMfS.

In step one, to qualify the cases of BMfS, coding was based on BMfS archetypes and the
transformative/proactive sustainability phase criteria. In this initial phase, the authors scored the
companies from 0-8 for both models illustrating the number of types of conduct or archetypes they
exhibited.

Eleven of the 14 cases scored 7/8 on the constructs associated with the proactive/transformational
phase of the transition to sustainable business (see Error! Reference source not found.), with the
other businesses scoring 8/8. All cases scored at least 4/8 archetypes of BMfS (see section: 2. 3
Characteristics of Business Models for Sustainability). For instance, case one, a start-up based on
sustainable home food delivery exhibited all proactive/transformational characteristics, except the
reporting criteria. This case also exhibited characteristics of efficiency, waste, substitution, and
functionality archetypes of BMfS.

The second step in the analysis sought to identify the critical success factors and barriers. A more
open coding approach was used to identify these factors, seeking to let key themes within the data
to emerge. Any information relating the answering of the research questions was coded. For a
theme to be developed, it must be mentioned by at least two respondents. The codes were
developed iteratively, via a process of abstraction and categorisation, seeking key themes within the
data relating to success factors. This allowed those factors facilitating or inhibiting the transition
towards BMfS to be identified.

For example, B1, a firm developing a home delivery service for groceries highlighted how they could
not achieve their objectives alone, and as such, had developed several partnerships. These included
partnerships with suppliers, but also with charities and other businesses. These partnerships were
initially identified as aiding the development of their business model and so were extracted from the
transcript. These extracts were later coded as ‘collaboration’ as they corresponded to similar
themed statements by other participants.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4 Empirical findings
4.1 Key Success Factors for the Transition to Business Models for Sustainability
The themes that were developed to illustrate the key success factors for the development of BMfS
are described below. The description serves to illustrate the character of the category developed,
and includes illustrative quotes from the anonymised respondents.
Table 7: Key success factors for the transition to BMfS

Key success factors Number of participants noting factor

Collaboration 9
Continuous innovation 7
A clear narrative and vision 7
Profitability 6
A foundation of sustainability 5
External events 3

1. Collaboration emerged through the data as a key factor in the successful transition to BMfS. This
success factor had two aspects. Firstly, the respondents noted that a BMfS could not exist in
isolation:

One problem is that I cannot do this alone (B1).

Businesses require the support of actors both up and downstream in the supply chain to develop a
BMfS and act in a sustainability way. For example, suitable suppliers are needed, who are willing to
provide sustainable inputs in a way. Also, without investors who are willing to examine alternative
business approaches, capital and investment would not be available:

We are working for example with Triodos3 Bank and some "green" investors and
venture capitalists (B2).

Due to the often alternative or novel products produced by BMfS, the market had to be prepared or
created through education and engagement efforts. This included engaging with customers and
consumers to inform and educate them, often through co-creation. These engagement and
education efforts were also undertaken with other competing sustainable businesses in order to
create a viable market:

For example, we are also working with restaurants and chefs in the area, so that
people can try our products as an alternative to meat (B2).

We obviously work with all entrepreneurs really together to collaborate on

sustainable and creative solutions (B1).

Co-creation is obviously important because we are going on along the route with
the caterer to sustainability (B11).

2. Continuous innovation was an important factor in ensuring that business models become
sustainable and then continue to improve. Several respondents noted that a continual drive to
improve their sustainability performance, including through innovation, was critical to their

3Triodos Bank claims to be a sustainable bank, with the mission to “make money work for positive social,
environmental and cultural change” Triodos Bank, 2017. Who we are. Triodos Bank Ziest, The Netherlands .

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

success. This drive to improve is likely to have been a key factor in transitioning from a
traditional business model, both in terms of a driver and as a factor in pushing a firm to fulfil as
many sustainability aspects as possible:

Our continuous drive to stay busy and sustainable has been a key success factor
for us (B6).

In that sense, there is an urge for continuous improvement (B3).

3. A clear narrative and vision, conveyed regularly and consistently, was critical for ensuring
demand for the products of sustainable business models, and for successful partnerships and for
motivating those within the company. This narrative was also noted as needing to be genuine for
success. This factor links to a need to create a market and engage with consumers and
customers. A clear narrative and vision aided customer engagement efforts, and without
customer engagement efforts, a clear and narrative vision would have been harder to convey:

As much as possible I try vision-sharing both within the company and outside the
company… [it is] especially important to tell our story and thereby create
awareness. When you tell your story often enough in the right places the
consumer will understand it… (B9).

Our vision was of course also very important, if we did not have this vision, we
would have never started (B7).

4. Profitability emerged as a success factor, as BMfS will not survive, nor thrive, where they do not
make money. This was especially the case where the businesses were start-ups, where
profitability during initial years can be difficult even for traditional businesses. If a firm is unable
to survive in the market place, it is unable to provide the environmental and social values
created via the BMfS. In this sense, respondents highlighted how profit (or viability) was needed
to realise sustainable outcomes and impacts:

It is also very important that you earn money because otherwise you cannot
continue to exist (B2).

The challenge for [our business] related to sustainability is for us to be financially

sustainable (B4).

At this time, it is also a matter of survival as a small business (B14).

5. A foundation of sustainability: sustainability was noted as having to be at the heart of everything

the business did. As BMfS require the integration of sustainability throughout a business, this
success factor came as no surprise. Often respondents noted how sustainability was within the
businesses ‘DNA’, and that it was critical that this fed through to all employees. Sustainability
was seen as having to be a core principle and value that percolated into all activities and
decisions:

Our enthusiasm with regard to sustainability is important for the employees

(B10).

It is important that all our employees have sustainability really in their DNA (B9).

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. Finally, external events were highlighted as critical for some of the businesses. Events beyond
the wider environment could impact the potential market for a BMfS. These could include the
influence of regulation or consumer trends. But often, serendipitous events were mentioned,
such as the 2013 ‘horse meat’ scandal in Europe or the Russian ban on agricultural inputs from
certain European countries (including the Netherlands) that started in August 2014:

The meat crisis and the horse meat scandal was obviously very important…(B5).

The Russian boycott was a major catalyst for us (B10).

4.2 Barriers to the Transition to Business Models for Sustainability

Whilst a range of factors that enhanced the transition to BMfS were identified, some factors that
inhibited this transition were also noted. As with the key success factors, quotes have been taken
from that data to illustrate the themes.
Table 8: Barriers to the transition to BMfS

Barriers to the transition to BMfS Number of participants noting factor

Lack of support from wider system 11
Principle-agent issues 3
External events 5

1. Lack of support from the wider system. This included a lack of support or facilitating action by the
government, which was often seen as a barrier to the transition to BMfS, and at best, a benign
influence. The government influence could include distortions to markets that create unsustainable
outcomes (such as little taxation on fossil fuels):

The government is not doing much. They stand in the way (B3).

The government has totally played no role for us, not in a positive way but also
not negative (B10).

Taxation of energy is not true, it has not made it easy for us to use sustainable
energy, for example. So, the government does not help us to become more
sustainable (B8).

Wholesalers or supermarkets were also noted as hindering progress, due to their unsustainable
practices, and power over prices (and hence profitability). For instance, a firm utilising a BMfS needs
access to a supermarket retail environment in order to maximise its reach and impact. Supermarkets
acted as gatekeepers to a wide range of consumers. However, access to consumers was often
denied, as supermarkets felt there was too little demand for new or novel sustainable food
products. Or, supermarkets were unwilling to sell products at a price that made them viable:

The retailer does not listen to us but to the consumer, so we try to influence
consumers. The retailer is a power block between us and the consumer, and this is
really far from desirable, it creates excessive dependence (B9).

Ultimately, it is still the wholesaler or the supermarket itself that determines the
price (B2).

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Principle-agent issues were also highlighted as hindering the transition, for example where
businesses were in rented or leased properties, meaning they lacked control over their facilities: In
such circumstances, the tenant may want to install pro-environmental equipment, such as a new
more efficient boiler or solar panels. However, as a tenant, they may not have the right to make
these types of changes. The landlord, although empowered to act, has no incentive as they are not
users of the facility. For example:

We also hire the premises so we draw our power from the landlord, we have no
choice in what kind of power we have, so I honestly do not know if it is green
power or not, we can do nothing about decisions here (B2).

3. External events were again noted, however this time in terms of their ability to have a negative
impact. The economic crisis noted as a specific barrier to the development of BMfS:

We had just begun during the economic crisis, and therefore it was very difficult
for us to get capital (B2).

5 Discussion
5.1 Critical Success Factors: comparisons with previous literature
The core aim of this research was to identify critical success factors and barriers to the creation of
BMfS, based on the case of the Dutch Food and Beverage industry. From the empirical inquiry, a
range of factors were identified, as seen in Table 7 and Table 8. The factors that emerged from the
open coding were quite different from the initial concepts used to launch the enquiry (see Table 1).
An overview of the critical success factors that emerged during the analysis can be seen in Figure 3.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3: Key success factors and barriers for the transition to sustainable business models in the Dutch Food and Beverage
Industry.

. An overview of the comparison between the results and the organisational change management
factors identified through the literature review is presented in Error! Reference source not found..
The right column highlights which change management drivers identified through the literature
review link to the empirically derived critical success factors. Some of the empirically derived critical
success factors identified through the data analysis do not correspond to any of the change
management drivers.

Collaboration has no direct comparison with the organisational change management concepts. It
does correspond well to characteristics of BMfS, such as costs and benefits being shared more
widely (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Tencati and Zsolnai, 2012), as well as linking to the
transformative/proactive phase through co-creation in the supply chain (Van Tulder et al., 2013;
Visser, 2014). The characteristics highlighted in the literature are not success factors. But their
confirmation as potentially important determinants in the transition to BMfS in the empirical sample
could mean that greater emphasis should be placed on these aspects for businesses wishing to
transition.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9: Comparison of results with organisational change management concepts

Critical success factors and barriers Organisational change management factors

developed from results of data analysis identified from literature review
Collaboration -

Clear narrative and vision Proactive leadership (partly confirmed) (Dawson,

1994; Hargreaves and Fink, 2012; Lozano, 2009b)
Aspiration (part confirmed) (Cameron and Green,
2009; Senge, 1999)
Continuous innovation -

Foundation of sustainability Proactive leadership (part confirmed) (Dawson, 1994;

Hargreaves and Fink, 2012; Lozano, 2009b)
Aspiration (part confirmed) (Cameron and Green,
2009; Senge, 1999)
Profitability Economic benefits (confirmed) (Benn et al., 2014;
Cannon, 1994; Schaltegger et al., 2011; The Natural
Step, 2016)

External events External factors (confirmed) (Dawson, 1994; Ditlev-

Simonsen and Midttun, 2011)
Diagnosis (part confirmed) (Cameron and Green,
2009; Carr, 2001)
Visible crises (part confirmed) (Henniker-Major, 2014;
Kotter, 1996)

Lack of support from system External factors (confirmed) (Dawson, 1994; Ditlev-
Simonsen and Midttun, 2011)
Principle-agent issues -

External events External factors (confirmed) (Dawson, 1994; Ditlev-

Simonsen and Midttun, 2011)

The critical success factor of a clear narrative and vision does link well to the organisational change
management factor of (proactive) leadership. This factor was highlighted in the literature as
important partly because it encouraged the inclusion of employees (Dawson, 1994; Lozano, 2009b;
Lozano et al., 2015). A clear narrative and vision can also be linked to the importance of employee
aspiration in driving organisational change (Senge, 1999). Both these factors link well to the internal
aspects of narrative and vision (as well as the importance of having a foundation of sustainability),
where it was noted that motivating employees, and ensuring their commitment to sustainability,
aided the transition to a sustainable business model.

The factor continual innovation has no clear links to the organisational change management
literature. However, as this is a potentially broad and generic factor, it could be argued that such a
factor is implicit within these concepts. Both the organisational change management and the
sustainable business literatures deal with change and innovation, and Schaltegger et al. (2011) notes
that a continuous business case is required for BMfS, noting the need for continued adjustment and
improvement.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The need for profitability links well to the role of economic benefits in organisational change (Benn
et al., 2014; Cannon, 1994). The more normative orientation of the BMfS literature, however, means
the importance of this factor is somewhat overshadowed by the need for more holistic performance
(Schaltegger et al., 2011; The Natural Step, 2016; van Hemel and Cramer, 2002). That said, the BMfS
literature does note that sustainability is incorporated from environmental, social, and economic
elements. Economic performance can be considered to be a precondition for the successful
transition to BMfS.

External factors were noted as both facilitators and barriers. Whilst the literature acknowledges that
a wide range of factors can be included in this category (Dawson, 1994; Ditlev-Simonsen and
Midttun, 2011), within the food and beverage industry context, these included chance events, such
as the ‘horse meat’ scandal, the Russian boycott of EU agricultural exports etc.. Such serendipity was
however taken advantage of. An ability to utilise chance events and see them as business
opportunities can also to some extent be seen to confirm a role for diagnosis in the transition to
BMfS, as noted within the organisational change management literature. Further, events such as the
food safety scare examples noted by the respondents could link to the role of visible crises
highlighted as a factor in organisational change management (Kotter, 1996).

The importance of the external environment is emphasised in previous research that highlights the
ability of the wider innovation system as well as open innovation approaches to aid BMfS innovation
and overcome the barriers it can face (Asswad et al., 2016; Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). Our
contribution is to highlight a range of critical success factors that are focused to a greater extent on
internal processes.

5.1 Barriers to the transition to business models for sustainability

Whilst success factors are identified, the research also highlighted barriers, whose documentation
can be of equal value; it should be noted that the lack of some of the critical success factors could in
themselves be argued to represent barriers. Specifically, however, the wider system within which
BMfS operate was highlighted as troublesome, with both government and retailers highlighted as an
example. Principle-agent issues were also noted, which may not be surprising as these are well
represented within the wider sustainability literature as a barrier (Baumgartner, 2011). This links to
the co-evolution of business models with socio-technical systems changes, and could highlight that
the socio-technical systems associated with the food and beverage sector are not supporting
business model innovation (Boons et al., 2013; Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013). Indeed, previous
research has highlighted the impact of barriers such as regulatory, market and financial, behavioural
and social factors, and the role that the innovation system plays in facilitating the development of
diffusion of BMfS (Laukkanen and Patala, 2014). Our results complement this previous work by
adding a more internally and management focused explanation for the difficulties faced in the
development of BMfS.

The results that barriers such as fear or diagnosis were not confirmed or only partly confirmed, could
in part be explained by the specific empirical context of the research and due to potential biases. For
example, respondents are unlikely to have been willing to note fear as a barrier, due to the negative
connotations associated with the concept. Further, as sustainability is already high on the agenda
within the food and beverage industry, diagnosis of this problem is to some extent already self-
evident, reducing the importance of the role of diagnosis in a transition.

Fewer barrier themes emerged from the data than those for critical success factors. This was a result
of the coding process and the fact that respondents reported a narrower set of factors acting as
barriers than compared to the success factors.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5.3 Implications for business

Managers should take the identified success factors into account and incorporate them into their
strategic planning when considering making the transition towards sustainable business.

The results show that sustainability should be the point of departure and the foundation of the
business model. To successfully transition to a BMfS, an owner or manager needs to establish the
key sustainable principles or issues the business model will be based upon (Bocken and Short, 2016).
This needs to be clearly articulated, providing clear guidance and leadership to both internal and
external stakeholders and potential collaborators.

These principles, however, need to be balanced with the need for the firm to survive within
competitive markets (Schaltegger et al., 2016). A business case for the business model needs to be
established and executed successfully (Schaltegger et al., 2011). Further, this business case and the
business model itself needs to be continuously reassessed, with opportunities for improvement
identified and taken.

Owners and managers also need to ensure that they have supportive relationships and wider
ecosystems around their firm. Collaboration is required to successful execute the transition to or
development of a BMfS. This is also an example of how the different success factors are mutually
supportive. For instance, collaboration is likely to be enhanced where a clear narrative and vision
exists. Managers should also remember not to alter business model aspects in isolation, and to
consider the business model as a whole when innovating (Long et al., 2017). The role of partners and
other actors in the wider innovation system should also be recognised and leveraged where possible
(Asswad et al., 2016; Laukkanen and Patala, 2014).

The role that external factors play, especially as barriers, advocates a role for the government.
Greater effort could be taken to ensure supportive regulation, but also increasing awareness of the
need for sustainability among retailers, consumers, and suppliers of food and beverage products.
The emergence of collaboration as a critical success factor further highlights the importance of these
relationships and the ecosystem that surrounds a business transitioning towards a BMfS.

6 Conclusions
This study has explored and identified critical success factors and barriers to the transition towards
BMfS, with an empirical focus on 14 SMEs and start-ups in the Dutch food and beverage industry.
This was achieved by firstly developing a process for identifying BMfS, using two different but
complementary concepts of BMfS. Second, a framework was developed based on the transition
towards BMfS and organisational change management literatures. We find that collaboration, a
clear narrative and vision, continual innovation, a sustainable foundation, profitability, and
serendipitous external events emerge as critical success factors for the transition to BMfS. Barriers
include external events, principle-agent problems as well as a lack of support from wider actors and
systems.

The results highlight that the creation of BMfS is dependent on a range of internal and external
factors. Our research has unpacked and highlighted some of the key management factors that act as
critical success factors within the context of the Dutch food and beverage sector. Our results
compliment previous explorations of the barriers to sustainable business model innovation, which
drew on innovation systems and open innovation concepts (Asswad et al., 2016; Laukkanen and
Patala, 2014).

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Similar and overlapping factors were identified across this research and previous studies. For
instance, the importance of economic effects or the importance of a supportive government. Where
this is the case, such factors take on a new level of validity, as they have been identified using
different theoretical and conceptual lenses and across different contexts. This research focused on
the specific context of SMEs and start-ups in the Dutch food and beverage sector. As such, some of
the factors identified are likely to be applicable to other contexts as well. For example, the
importance of continual innovation or profitability are likely to act as critical success factors for BMfS
in other competitive sectors and contexts. Characteristics such as the proximity of consumers to the
BMfS, the structure of the market (the food and beverage market has several large multinational
actors as well as many SMEs and start-ups), or the competitiveness of the market, are likely to
impact the applicability of the results to other contexts. It is possible that in less competitive
contexts, continue innovation and improvement may be less critical, while principle-agent issues
may be less pernicious for larger actors transitioning to BMfS. Further research on different sized
businesses, within different sectors or geographical contexts will be required to confirm whether the
success factors identified in this research are applicable to different contexts. Further research is
needed because this research was qualitative and explorative by nature and had a limited number of
data points.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Reference List
Asswad, J., Hake, G., Marx Gómez, J., 2016. Overcoming the Barriers of Sustainable Business Model
Innovations by Integrating Open Innovation, in: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Franczyk, B. (Eds.), Business
Information Systems: 19th International Conference, BIS 2016, Leipzig, Germany, July, 6-8, 2016,
Proceedings. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 302-314.
Baumgartner, R.J., 2011. Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice.
Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 783-786.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., 2014. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability 3rd ed.
Routledge, Oxon.
Bidmon, C.M., Knab, S., 2014. The Three Roles of Business Models for Socio-technical Transitions
ISPIM Conference - Innovation for Sustainable Economy and Society ISPIM, Dublin, Ireland
Birkin, F., Cashman, A., Koh, S.C.L., Liu, Z., 2009. New sustainable business models in China. Business
Strategy and the Environment 18, 64-77.
Blok, V., Long, T.B., Gaziulusoy, A.I., Ciliz, N., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Csutora, M., Boks, C., 2015.
From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future: advances and challenges in the
transition to global sustainable production and consumption: Introduction to the ERSCP stream of
the Special volume. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, Part A, 19-30.
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A value mapping tool for sustainable business
modelling. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 13, 482-497.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., 2016. Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and
opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 18, 41-61.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 42-56.
Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., Kolk, A., 2014. Business models for sustainable technologies: Exploring
business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy 43, 284-300.
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and
steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 9-19.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., Wagner, M., 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and
economic performance: an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 1-8.
Cameron, E., Green, M., 2009. Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the
models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page, London, UK.
Cannon, T., 1994. Corporate responsibility. A textbook on business ethics, governance, environment:
role and responsibilities. Pitman publishing, London.
Carr, A., 2001. Understanding emotion and emotionality in a process of change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 14, 421-436.
Chesbrough, H., 2010. Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning
43, 354-363.
Chesbrough, H., Rosenbloom, R.S., 2002. The role of the business model in capturing value from
innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and
Corporate Change 11, 529-555.
Chun, Y.-Y., Lee, K.-M., 2013. Life Cycle-Based Generic Business Strategies for Sustainable Business
Models. Journal of Sustainable Development 6, p1.
Clinton, L., Whisnant, R., 2014. Model Behavior - 20 Business Model Innovations for Sustainability
SustainAbility, London.
Dawson, P., 1994. Organisational change. A processual approach. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. ,
London.
de Medeiros, J.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Cortimiglia, M.N., 2014. Success factors for environmentally
sustainable product innovation: a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 76-
86.
Delahaye, R., Edens, B., Graveland, C., Hoekstra, R., Koren, W., Lammers, E., Lodder, B., Pieters, A.,
van Rossum, M., Schenau, S., Schuerhoff, M., Smits, J.P., van Velzen, M., Verberk, M., Vuik, J., Zult,

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

D., 2013. Environmental Accounts of the Netherlands 2012, Statistics Netherlands, Den Haag,
Netherlands
Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D., Midttun, A., 2011. What motivates managers to pursue corporate
responsibility? a survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 18, 25-38.
Ebben, J.J., Johnson, A.C., 2005. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to
performance in small firms. Strategic Management Journal 26, 1249-1259.
FoodDrinkEurope, 2012. Environmental Sustainability Vision Towards 2030: Achievements,
Challenges and Opportunities. FoodDrinkEurope, Brussels, Belgium
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2016. Design thinking to enhance the sustainable
business modelling process – A workshop based on a value mapping process. Journal of Cleaner
Production 135, 1218-1232.
Gilgun, J.F., 2011. Coding in Deductive Qualitative Analysis Amazon Digital Services USA
Gilgun, J.F., 2015. Deductive Qualitative Analysis as Middle Ground: Theory-Guided Qualitative
Research Amazon Digitial Services LLC.
Hargreaves, A., Fink, D., 2012. Sustainable leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Henniker-Major, 2014. The Bangladesh Factory Collapse: A Case for Intervention and Policy Change,
Seven Pillars Institute For Global Finance and Ethics.
Keijzers, G., 2002. The transition to the sustainable enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production 10,
349-359.
Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading change. Harvard Business Press.
Lantos, G.P., 2001. The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of consumer
marketing 18, 595-632.
Laukkanen, M., Patala, S., 2014. Analysing barriers to sustainable business model innovations:
Innovation systems approach. International Journal of Innovation Management.
Lehner, M., Halliday, S.V., 2014. Branding sustainability: Opportunity and risk behind a brand-based
approach to sustainable markets. Ephemer: Theory and politics in organizations 14, 13-34.
Lehni, M., 2000. Eco-efficiency - creating more value with less impact World Business Council for
Sustainable Development Switzerland
Long, T.B., Blok, V., Poldner, K., 2017. Business models for maximising the diffusion of technological
innovations for climate-smart agriculture International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
Long, T.B., Tallontire, A., Young, W., 2015. CSR, voluntary standards and sustainability. , in: Kopnina,
H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E. (Eds.), Sustainability - Key Issues. Routledge, UK.
Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J.C., Whiteman, G., Rotmans, J., 2009. Business strategies for Transitions
Towards Sustainable Systems Business Strategy and the Environment.
Loorbach, D., Wijsman, K., 2013. Business transition management: exploring a new role for business
in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production 45, 20-28.
Lozano, R., 2009a. Orchestrating Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability: Strategies to
overcome resistance to change and to facilitate institutionalization, Cardiff University Business
School. University of Cardiff, Cardiff.
Lozano, R., 2009b. Orchestrating Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability: Strategies to
overcome resistance to change and to facilitate institutionalization. Cardiff University.
Lozano, R., 2013. Are Companies Planning their Organisational Changes for Corporate Sustainability?
An Analysis of Three Case Studies on Resistance to Change and their Strategies to Overcome it.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20, 275-295.
Lozano, R., Carpenter, A., Huisingh, D., 2015. A Review of 'Theories of the Firm' and their
Contributions to Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production in this issue
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Massa, L., Bocken, N.M.P., Brent, A., Musango, J., 2016. Business models for
shared value: Main report. Network for Business Sustainability South Africa, South Africa.
Michaelis, L., 2003. The role of business sustainable consumption Journal of Cleaner Production 11,
915-921.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Moura-Leite, R.C., Padgett, R.C., 2011. Historical background of corporate social responsibility. Social
Responsibility Journal 7, 528-539.
Osagie, E.R., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., Mulder, M., 2016. Individual Competencies for
Corporate Social Responsibility: A Literature and Practice Perspective. J Bus Ethics 135, 233-252.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business Model Generation. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Tucci, C.L., 2005. Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and the
Future of the Concept Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16.
Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2006. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage
and Corporate Social Responsibility. Havard Business Review 84, 78-92.
Preuss, L., 2005. Rhetoric and Reality of Corporate Greening: a View from the Supply Chain
Management Function. Business Strategy and the Environment 14, 123-139.
Raworth, K., 2005. Trading Away Our Rights: Women Working in Global Supply Chains Oxfam,
London.
Reisch, L., Eberle, U., Sylvia, L., 2013. Sustainable Food Consumption: An Overview of Contemporary
Issues and Policies Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 9, 7-25.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer,
M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H.,
Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J.,
Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating
space for humanity. Nature 461, 472-475.
Roelofsen, M., Blok, V., Wubben, E., 2015. Maintaining the CSR-identity of Sustainable
Entrepreneurial Firms: The role of corporate governance in periods of business growth. , in:
Frederiksen, C.S., Idowu, S.O., Mermod, A.Y., Nielsen, M.E.J. (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility
and Governance: Practice and Theory. Springer, Dordrecht.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2009. Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson
Education, Essex, UK.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2011. Business Cases for Sustainability and the Role
of Business Model Innovation. Developing a Conceptual Framework. Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business Models for Sustainability: A Co-
Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Transformation. Organization
& Environment.
SCHNEIDER, S., SPIETH, P., 2013. BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA. International Journal of Innovation Management 17, 1340001.
Senge, P., 2000. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P.M., 1999. The Fifth Discipline. The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation. Random
House Business Books, London.
Stoughton, A.M., Ludema, J., 2012. The driving forces of sustainability. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 25, 501-517.
Stubbs, W., Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organization &
Environment 21, 103-127.
Tencati, A., Zsolnai, L., 2012. Collaborative Enterprise and Sustainability: The Case of Slow Food. J
Bus Ethics 110, 345-354.
The Natural Step, 2016. Accelerating Change The Natural Step Stockholm, Sweden.
Triodos Bank, 2017. Who we are. Triodos Bank Ziest, The Netherlands
van Hemel, C., Cramer, J., 2002. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner
Production 10, 439-453.
Van Tilburg, R., Van Tulder, R., Francken, M., 2012. Duurzaam ondernemen waarmaken - Het
bedrijfskundig perspectief. Koninklijke van Gorcum.
Van Tulder, R., Van Tilburg, R., Francken, M., da Rosa, A., 2013. Managing the Transition to a
Sustainable Enterprise: Lessons from Frontrunner Companies. Routledge, London.
Visser, W., 2014. CSR 2.0: Transforming Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Springer London.

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., Dentoni, D., 2015. Individual competencies for
managers engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Young, W., Tilley, F., 2006. Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness
and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the Environment 15, 402-
415.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix A
Interview constructs and questions
Interview constructs and questions for Sustainable Business Transition Phases

Constructs Operationalization Questions References

Vision on Holistic, strategic How important is sustainability for Van Tilburg, Van
sustainability your company? Tulder, and Francken
What is the/your definition of 2012
sustainability? Stoughton and
What is the role of sustainability Ludema (2012)
within your organization?
What is your business purpose of
sustainability?

Orientation Cosmopolitan, What is your (external) orientation Van Tilburg, Van

external society regarding sustainability? Tulder, and Francken
developments 2012

Business case Costs, clients, law, To what extent is sustainability part Van Tilburg, Van
elements reputation, identity, of your Business Model? Tulder, and Francken
long-term continuity 2012

Transparency Full transparency How sustainable is your company at Van Tilburg, Van
(transparency vs. this moment regarding Tulder, and Francken
4-Phases
Model

competitive sustainability? 2012

advantage)

Reporting Integrated with Can I have a copy of your Van Tilburg, Van
intertwined strategy Sustainability Report? Tulder, and Francken
2012
Stakeholders Society How does your organization see Van Tilburg, Van
itself regarding sustainability within Tulder, and Francken
the society? 2012

Supply chain Co-creation What do you think of the role of the Van Tilburg, Van
approach suppliers regarding sustainability Tulder, and Francken
issues? 2012
What is the role of the suppliers
regarding sustainable
entrepreneurship?

Dominant Management/ Board What is the vision on sustainability Van Tilburg, Van
functional and strategy for the organization and what are Tulder, and Francken
discipline the long-term plans for 2012
sustainability?

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Constructs and Interview Questions for BMfS Archetypes: (all Bocken et al. 2014)

Construct Operationalisation Questions

Efficiency Low-carbon Does your organization focus on maximizing material and
manufacturing costs; energy efficiency? If so, how?
lean manufacturing;
dematerialization;

Waste Circular economy; reuse, Does your organization focus on creating value from waste?
recycle, remanufacture; If so, how?

Substitution Renewable energy Does your organization focus on the substitution of

sources; biomimicry; renewable energy and natural processes? If so, how?
green chemistry
8-Archetye Model

Functionality Product oriented PSS- Does your organization focus on delivering functionality
maintenance, etc. rather than ownership? If so, how?

Stewardship Biodiversity protection; Does your organization focus on adopting a stewardship

ethical trade; choice role? If so, how?
editing by retailers; etc.

Sufficiency Consumer education; Does your organization focus on encouraging sufficiency? If

demand management; so, how?
product longevity;

Repurpose Not for profit; hybrid Does your organization focus on repurposing for society? If
businesses; localization; so, how?
base of pyramid
solutions

Scale-up Incubators; open Does your organization focus on developing scale-up

innovation; solutions If so, how?
crowdsourcing/funding;

30
Constructs and Interview Questions for Organisational Transition Management

Pro-Active Requests that team members make decisions; Shares a compelling Do you, or does your supervisor has a pro-active attitude towards Dawson
leadership vision; Foresees and influences change; Teaches team to be self- sustainable change, if so, how? 1994
reliant; Focuses on achieving performance outcomes;
Aspiration Organization produces continuous learning and growth and has positive Does your organization have a positive vision of sustainability, if so, Senge
vision how? 1999
Economic The higher the potential for economic benefits, the more important it Do you see sustainability as a business opportunity, if so, how? Cannon
benefits becomes as change driver. 1994
External Political and financial upheaval, new technologies, regulatory change, What do you think of the role of the government/customers Dawson
driving worldwide competition, and consumer preferences regarding sustainability issues and entrepreneurship? 1994
factors
Correct Diagnosis of something being wrong in the organisation and needing to Is your transition to a SBM due to the diagnosis of something being Carr
diagnosis be changed wrong within the organization? If so, how? 2001
Organisational Change

Upsurge of The upsurge of visible crises that can attract attention and push up Is your transition to a SBM due to the upsurge of visible crises? If so, Kotter
Management

visible crises urgency levels how? 1996

Non-active The lack of a pro-active attitude towards sustainability Collected through corresponding positive question. Dawson
leadership 1994
Fear Organization produces short-term changes, but negative vision Collected through corresponding positive question. Senge
1999
Economic The failure to obtain economic benefits diminishes the potential and Did the lack of a business case have an influence on the Cannon
losses need for change. implementation of SBM? Did the extra costs of transparency have an 1994
influence on your SBM?
External Political and financial disruption, new technologies, regulatory change, Did the economic crisis have influence on the implementation of Dawson
hindering worldwide competition, and consumer preferences your SBM? 1994
factors
Wrong The lack of the ability to diagnose problems within the organization Collected through corresponding positive question. Carr
diagnosis 2001
Upsurge of The upsurge of visible crises that can attract attention and push up Collected through corresponding positive question. Kotter
visible crises urgency levels 1996

31